Damn this thread stinks. It reminds me of our do nothing Congress. Bunch of "smart" people going back and forth on minute details in order to "get it right". And all the while there is little to no progress and nothing gets done. Keep banging tho.

(16-01-2013 11:14 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: All Lion seems interested in is debating about debating. I don't understand why lion is afraid to just go into the boxing ring and just debate A2 without all the silly rules and word-count crap. In this thread it's a free-for-all and anyone can post -- it's too easy for Lion to miss important points (since he likes to evade giving real answers in the place of cheeky remarks)...in the boxing ring its just one on one....

But whatever....

Me and atothetheist jist hangin' out in some private thread, talkin' past each other 'bout the bible an stuff an ramblin' for dayz an dayz never gittin anywhere's - each one claimin t'other gone dun lost the ''debate'' ages afore we even staaat'd n'all.

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: Ha! You are making a huge fit over one thing. Honestly, it makes me wonder if you aren't just arguing the point to stay away from the debate. You know damn well that you are thinking the wrong thing about me. You know what will prove disingenuous editing? You quoted post of my original post. If you quote my original post, the auidence can see it regardless of my edits.

No, its not a huge thing. I dont care if you want/need to edit posts after you have already submitted them.
Its just that isnt a formal debate in my opinion.

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...You automatically think I will make severe mistakes and fallacies when I am just thinking about facts, dates, quotes...

No, YOU are the one who thinks you will make mistakes and need to correct them after you have already submitted your debate post. I already explained that, in my opinion, one should draft and proof read their submission carefully BEFORE lodging it. And if an error (of logic, fact, reasoning, etc.) has been made, then your debate OPPONENT can draw it to your attention.

Your insistence on the need to take back something you said by retrospectively editing strikes me as unnecessary if you are prepared to concede publically that you DID make a mistake. Suppose you (mistakenly) said Joseph of 'Antioch' or Simon of 'Cyprus' and your opponent showed it was Arimathea and Cyrene (Libya). Why would you go back and correct your post after your error was shown?

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...I have read your debates, and to be honest, the edit function would be more of a benefit to you than for me.

Do you think I should go back to those past debates and ask if I can edit them to fix my mistakes?
Change a few words around?
Delete the embarrassing stuff?
I dont recall making any gross errors of fact but I suppose it would be nifty to be able to go back and re-touch, ''photo-shop'' a few things.

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...Also, I would like to remind you of the venue of the place. This is an informal forum where formal debates are not usually taken place. It's usually one v one until somebody forfeits, leaves, or proves/has disproven arguments to be correct.

Fine. Lets just have an informal open-ended debate. Nothing wrong with that. How long do you think it will take you to prove to me that the Resurrection never happened?

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...I have no qualms with a more formal style of debate, in fact I like the word limits...

Why should we have word limits?
...or posting deadlines, or forfeit rules, or clearly defined topic/scope, or the need to cite reference sources, or a Moderator.

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...I would also clarify on myself, since you seem to have no idea about me. I am fifteen years old and let me tell you that I am not an amateur in chess or in debates. I play and debate for fun. I like the battle of wits and exchange of ideas.

Pleased to meet you. Um......I didnt realise you were only 15. Sorry.
I applaud your enthusiasm.

(17-01-2013 07:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote: ...What I don't like is the fact that you are focusing on an issue which is relatively minor.

No YOU are focussing on the issue of editing posts.
I already stated that I'm not doing a *cough* formal debate if that is one of your insistent stipulations.

Yes.
And with anyone else who thinks theres no good logical reasons or evidence to believe in the death and Resurrection of the historical
Jesus of Nazareth - my personal Lord and Saviour.

...who gave Himself to bring us the Good News that The Kingdom of God is closer than you think. And that people who are sad, broken, afflicted, ashamed, depressed, confused by the sins of this world (greed, hatred, violence, injustice) can find salvation, forgiveness and hope if they want. The Resurrection shows us that God DOES love us and that death is not the end.

(17-01-2013 05:14 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:
Me and atothetheist jist hangin' out in some private thread, talkin' past each other 'bout the bible an stuff an ramblin' for dayz an dayz never gittin anywhere's - each one claimin t'other gone dun lost the ''debate'' ages afore we even staaat'd n'all.

Lets have us a hillbilly varmint huntin debate. Y'all watch me come down on him like a chickin on a June bug!

Wow, that was rather obnoxious.

Yeah, I don't understand the appeal of debating this guy. It sounds like there will be plenty of tedious word play, mockery, and at this point (for me, personally) the subjects are reaching the point of banality.

(17-01-2013 12:21 PM)kineo Wrote: Yeah, I don't understand the appeal of debating this guy. It sounds like there will be plenty of tedious word play, mockery, and at this point (for me, personally) the subjects are reaching the point of banality.

Also, it's not like he will be able to make an argument that we haven't heard and refuted a thousand times before.

The debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman pretty much settled the issue for me.